Thanks for your hot take and arguments.
fully functional websites and browsers without all the ridiculous compromises we do today to give web designers full control over "user experience".
What specifically gives web designers "full control" of UX? Layout? The styling of buttons, backgrounds, borders and such? Where is the line between fully functional sites and giving web designers "full control?" Where does a site such as 8ch fall? It has many convenient features like draggable windows that I imagine would be barred in a light version of the Web.
Only one format for lossless images and another one for lossy images, only one format for lossy audio and only on format for lossless audio (and NO AUTOPLAY), and only one format for video.
This condition falls apart through inductive reasoning when you ask yourself this question: why not uphold this for entire operating systems? One of many answers is that while for the end user, they're mostly the same, there are many ways that different file formats make things easier in the back end. Newer video encoding formats make files more compact, but take more processing power to decode. If you lock the web into one format and one format only, then when it gets outdated, or if there is something that it sucks at (consider live action video vs 2D animation), no one can do anything about it. Having many video formats on the web would be fine because computers know how to decode them, and whoever created the video can decide the best format to encode them in based on the needs of the file and how people will use it.
Sane layouting engine based on what titling window managers have,
Tiling window managers don't have a layouting engine. Well, one could argue they do, but it's not nearly as sophisticated as even pure HTML without CSS. Pure HTML is a very good model for web page contents because that's what it was made for.
or a return to iframe-like/table-like layouting, if you wish.
What does that accomplish exactly? That's the crap that makes a web page difficult to use and hard to look at. Doing that is the same problem CSS3 has caused -- but worse.
Standarized components to avoid stupid shit like the thousand different ways that exist to define buttons, or inconsistent forms (can someone explain to me why a button is an input, but a textarea isn't?)
There are two types of buttons, <input> and <button>. The former is for text; the latter is for more complicated content like images or rich text. (You can't put HTML in an input's "value" attribute).
<textarea> is a field special enough to get its very own tag because the contents of a textarea can contain line breaks and often contain a lot of content. It would be bad to put so much content -- especially line breaks -- all in a "value" attribute, so we are blessed by Tim Berners-Lee to be able to put it inside <textarea> tags.
No JS, and instead a standarized way to perform most common JS functions (Ajax fetching, form validation, hide or show things, etc).
And more importantly, enforced encryption.
You can't enforce encryption. You can enforce that the other end of an encrypted connection isn't willingly leaking all of the information you're giving. HTTPS currently already allows for SSL anyways. If sites aren't using SSL now, there's not much you can do, and there's not much reason to do something in the first place.
but we should do away with the idea of supporting legacy stuff; just provide fallbacks, and delrte anything not currently in use.
There are plenty of websites you can visit right now that haven't been changed in a decade. Are you saying a standard should just make it complicated to visit sites that don't fit the current, constantly-changing standard?